Netflix to users, developers: we own your viewing history

Changes to the API will block other apps' access to viewing history, other data.

Netflix has announced that it will change both its public application programming interfaces (APIs) and the terms of service to access them, essentially locking away users’ rental history data and preventing them from using third-party applications to export it. At the same time, the company is making it harder for developers to integrate information from Netflix’s API with data from other services as the company maneuvers to keep users within its own applications.

On October 12, when Netflix aborted its spinoff of the physical disc rental business under the new "Qwikster" brand, it announced that the company’s public API would continue to support DVD-related features (after previously announcing they would be retired as part of the split). But now Netflix is splitting its disc and streaming “catalog” databases, and dumping much of the metadata that developers had depended on from both the DVD and the streaming APIs. The functional changes eliminate nearly everything related to users’ viewing history, including rental history, when rented disks are shipped and returned, when streamed films are watched, and the bookmark information for streamed videos paused in progress.

The changes, most of which go into effect this September, were announced in Netflix’s developer blog on June 15 by Daniel Jacobson, Netflix’s director of engineering for the API. In part, they’re driven by the shift in Netflix's strategic direction away from its movies-by-mail business and towards streaming movies, television shows, and its own branded content. But they also appear to prevent developers from using the Netflix library to aggregate a user's movie-watching history across competing services (combining Netflix and iTunes data, for example)—and to prevent developers from essentially wrapping Netflix’s API as their own paid service.

The post generated an immediate negative reaction, with some developers convinced that Netflix wants to cut off their air supply. One developer commented publicly on the changes, saying, “In essence, all the API stuff that third-party developers use to make value-added applications that work better than Netflix’s own site... is going away.”

The changes to the terms of service initially appeared even more hostile to developers, placing restrictions on the packaging of Netflix data as a paid service. That prompted a blog post by social movie rating site Goodfil.ms co-founder John Barton, in which Barton wrote, “The first implication of these additions: if you decide you just want to create a 'Netflix' app, and add significant value on top of the Netflix service, you cannot charge your users for that value. You can do something positive for Netflix, but not for yourself. There is no incentive for you to build something useful for Netflix customers, and if you’ve already built your app, you have three months left.”

But Netflix has indicated the terms of service changes aren’t targeted at “consumer-facing” apps. Instead, they’re intended to prevent developers from repackaging the API as a service for connected televisions or other websites to extract content from Netflix to populate catalogs or act as the primary source for a content search engine.

Still, there’s reason for developers to be suspicious of Netflix’s intentions after the company’s move last year to shed its disc-by-mail business. The company has swerved with its API plans a few times, and had begun to remove functionality from the API even before the June 15 blog post.

In May, for instance, Netflix also dropped information about when a movie would expire from Netflix’s streaming library. The “available until” information was modified to show all films as being available until January 1, 2100—until two weeks before they expire, when the actual date will be displayed. And as of today, the company has also retired the “App Gallery” it had created to highlight third-party applications using its API. Netflix said that the gallery was being retired because “these pages were outdated and seldom used.”

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

They are missing tons of TV series, which is fine b/c they have great ones like Luther, but even then the delay in new episodes is significant. The new release problem also extends to their new movies section, which is awful.

Just like Luther, there are a lot of shows where you only have access to the 1st season on Netflix despite the fact that later seasons were already broadcasted years ago. I start to think that content owners are just dangling the 1st season bait on Netflix to try to get people to go out and buy the DVDs or cable subscriptions. Drug dealer approach.

The only advantage Netflix has is price. It's not just inferior to cable. It's also inferior to the payware streaming services. Even those don't have a sufficient breadth of content to completely replace cable.

Using Netflix to "cut the cord" requires some pretty severe compromises. You're not kidding anyone.

Pretty much everything is better unless your only consideration is price.

People that think Cable TV is better than streaming haven't thought about the issue enough.

Cable TV:

There's usually 2m 15s of commercials for every 5m of service.

Commercials have become intrusive and uncensored in general. Who wants to watch or hear about yeast infections, erectile dysfunction, birth control, weight loss pills or any of their unsatisfactory side effects like uncontrollable oily discharge from the anus? NO ONE.

Cable companies usually bump programming in favor of what's more popular, meaning you're paying to watch what OTHER people enjoy and not necessarily what YOU enjoy.

You're paying to watch a show when the cable company deems it appropriate and not when you do.

DVRs help to curb the commercials and other such timing issues, but they're limited by law and hardware on the amount of recordings at a time and storage.

Most channels have maybe 3 or 4 hours of fresh content every day, the rest of the day it's reruns.

Reruns are generally the same rotating every year. Ever noticed Top Gun or Rudolph around the holiday times? It's like clockwork...

Streaming:

Little to no commercials depending on the service, but it's your choice.

A very large library that spans a wide range of time and not just current trends.

The entire library can usually be watched at any time for any reason without any extra cost for a DVR or worry about having to record.

Access to the content wherever you have internet

The content isn't usually as new

Episodic content lags in being updated

I personally see streaming as the better option... but I'm not a TV junkie, so the outdated episodic content is sufficient to me. I abhor Family guy, South park, Simpsons, trashy reality TV shows about trying to find a 'true love', trashy talk shows, rich people, and bratty rich kids.

The only advantage Netflix has is price. It's not just inferior to cable. It's also inferior to the payware streaming services. Even those don't have a sufficient breadth of content to completely replace cable.

Using Netflix to "cut the cord" requires some pretty severe compromises. You're not kidding anyone.

Pretty much everything is better unless your only consideration is price.

Price is everything. Content is secondary. When you look at the content vs. value, Netflix wins out easily.

Cable gives you 10x the shows and content...at over 10x the price...plus commercials. Fail.

You go ahead and blow $100 a month or more on cable programming, I think I'll be happier utilizing that $100 a month for something far more important than staring blankly off into space and laughing with a canned audience to "How I Humped Your Mother" or some other pathetic drivel. Which, Netflix has most of that series too if I'm really hard up to see Alyson Hannigan looking cute or a gay guy who plays a playboy.

they shouldn't have built their business around adding slightly more value to an existing large company.

I usually agree with this sentiment when discussing companies built on any other companies services, but in this case there is a real problem. Netflix really doesn't care about its customers, there has never official way to manage your queue from any iDevice so third party developers have stepped up and done some pretty compelling apps that let you do this. If Netflix won't take care of their own customers then someone else will, and then the third party developers can always insert "did you know this was available on Hulu and Blockbuster as well?".

The only advantage Netflix has is price. It's not just inferior to cable. It's also inferior to the payware streaming services. Even those don't have a sufficient breadth of content to completely replace cable.

Using Netflix to "cut the cord" requires some pretty severe compromises. You're not kidding anyone.

Pretty much everything is better unless your only consideration is price.

Price is everything. Content is secondary. When you look at the content vs. value, Netflix wins out easily.

Cable gives you 10x the shows and content...at over 10x the price...plus commercials. Fail.

You go ahead and blow $100 a month or more on cable programming, I think I'll be happier utilizing that $100 a month for something far more important than staring blankly off into space and laughing with a canned audience to "How I Humped Your Mother" or some other pathetic drivel. Which, Netflix has most of that series too if I'm really hard up to see Alyson Hannigan looking cute or a gay guy who plays a playboy.

I really want to know who in god's green earth is paying $100 a month on cable? It stats at like $30, maybe if you are including your internet bill on top of it, which is completely disingenuous, or if you get every damn channel offered, which will provide content netflix can't and never will be able to touch *cough Game of thrones*.

I think this is perfectly legit, especially if NetFlix intends to get into the advertising biz. (I'd watch limited ads on netflix if it meant they could get newer and better content - the current streaming library isn't very interesting to me). It also makes sense if Netflix is interested in moving into Hulu Plus' territory, which seems like the next logical step. I also like the idea of my information being less shared.

NO FRIGGIN' WAY. Just to counter this absurd view for any Netflix datascraper out there, I am a long-time Netflix subscriber and a cord-cutter. I don't own a TV, consuming all media on a HTPC without a tuner of any kind. Ads on a paid service will mean the loss of my subscription. There's no room for negotiation on this issue. Ads on services like Hulu which are free of subscription costs, I tolerate. I will not, however, support migrating the cable companies business model to a new industry.

The only advantage Netflix has is price. It's not just inferior to cable. It's also inferior to the payware streaming services. Even those don't have a sufficient breadth of content to completely replace cable.

Using Netflix to "cut the cord" requires some pretty severe compromises. You're not kidding anyone.

Pretty much everything is better unless your only consideration is price.

This assumes we want to watch the crap that's on cable currently. I have zero interest in most of the shows on TV these days, especially the so-called reality ones. There are exactly 3 shows currently airing on TV that I am interested in and I am willing to vote with my wallet and wait until they show up on Netflix. In the meantime, I have plenty of options to fill my time via shows already on Netflix.

This is the first I've heard of 3rd party Netflix services, but it sounds like they could have been cool. Oh well.

I wanted to post exactly that, too. I never even realized that there were third party tools out there that interacted with Netflix, as I've never felt I had a problem with Netflix's site to manage my movies and shows, so I never went looking for anything to complement it. I certainly can see the benefit to such tools, though, so this news is a bit disappointing.

What I find interesting is the question of why is Netflix doing this. Only one poster addressed that and is probably pretty close to the mark. Netflix is trying to hide the fact that their catalog offering is suffering after the loss of Starz network.

What I fear is the big media companies are slowly squeezing Netflix out of their business model. Perhaps Netflix should offer opt in commercials in the stream. If there were optional pre and post-roll commercials that were targeted based on my viewing preferences, I might even go for that. The main thing I dislike about modern commercials is they pollute the mind with things that I have no interest in. I feel like I am being actively brainwashed. No I don't want commercials interrupting my viewing experience.

I think it is obvious that Netflix needs to do something increase its catalog, and baring a few sugar daddies that throw money at Netflix, the only way they will be able to do that is to prove to the media companies / advertisers that they have a huge market of eyeballs to be worth it.

I really want to know who in god's green earth is paying $100 a month on cable?

That's what it would cost me if I bought it with internet. Obviously, I need internet, but no way am I going to pay $100 per month for internet and cable. I have two choices where I live, so obviously, prices will generally be high.

Price is everything. Content is secondary. When you look at the content vs. value, Netflix wins out easily.

Cable gives you 10x the shows and content...at over 10x the price...plus commercials. Fail.

You go ahead and blow $100 a month or more on cable programming, I think I'll be happier utilizing that $100 a month for something far more important than staring blankly off into space and laughing with a canned audience to "How I Humped Your Mother" or some other pathetic drivel. Which, Netflix has most of that series too if I'm really hard up to see Alyson Hannigan looking cute or a gay guy who plays a playboy.

I was with you until your last phrase... Does an actor's being gay have any bearing on his ability to play a straight character? The reverse role happens all the time, and no one complains. You just end up sounding like a bigot. /boggle

BadassSailor wrote:

I really want to know who in god's green earth is paying $100 a month on cable? It stats at like $30, maybe if you are including your internet bill on top of it, which is completely disingenuous, or if you get every damn channel offered, which will provide content netflix can't and never will be able to touch *cough Game of thrones*

I just checked Comcast to get an idea of cable costs currently. For $30 you get practically nothing. In order to get Comcast SportsNet (good luck watching any local sports without it) and channels you'd expect to have like AMC, TNT. MTV, ESPN, HGTV, Spike, etc. you have to pay at least $65. Want HD? That's $10 extra. Mind you, this doesn't include any premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) and we're already hovering around $80, without internet. If anything, getting internet reduces your cost somewhat, but you're still talking about $129 for Internet, and HD box, and a basic set of channels, not including premium channels or DVR.

If it were $30 a month for anything worthwhile, I wouldn't have cancelled my cable.

People that think Cable TV is better than streaming haven't thought about the issue enough.

Cable TV:

There's usually 2m 15s of commercials for every 5m of service.

Commercials have become intrusive and uncensored in general. Who wants to watch or hear about yeast infections, erectile dysfunction, birth control, weight loss pills or any of their unsatisfactory side effects like uncontrollable oily discharge from the anus? NO ONE.

Cable companies usually bump programming in favor of what's more popular, meaning you're paying to watch what OTHER people enjoy and not necessarily what YOU enjoy.

You're paying to watch a show when the cable company deems it appropriate and not when you do.

DVRs help to curb the commercials and other such timing issues, but they're limited by law and hardware on the amount of recordings at a time and storage.

Most channels have maybe 3 or 4 hours of fresh content every day, the rest of the day it's reruns.

Reruns are generally the same rotating every year. Ever noticed Top Gun or Rudolph around the holiday times? It's like clockwork...

Streaming:

Little to no commercials depending on the service, but it's your choice.

A very large library that spans a wide range of time and not just current trends.

The entire library can usually be watched at any time for any reason without any extra cost for a DVR or worry about having to record.

Access to the content wherever you have internet

The content isn't usually as new

Episodic content lags in being updated

I personally see streaming as the better option... but I'm not a TV junkie, so the outdated episodic content is sufficient to me. I abhor Family guy, South park, Simpsons, trashy reality TV shows about trying to find a 'true love', trashy talk shows, rich people, and bratty rich kids.

I've fixed every one of those cable TV problems with Windows Media Center and a Ceton InfiniTV.

Scheduling? I record TV and watch it when I have time.

Laws and hardware limiting how much I can record? What? I can record and store as much TV as I want, for as long as I want.

Commercials? Not an issue. I have software to strip them out of recorded TV. They're not part of the saved file. I never even have to fast forward through them.

Only three or four hours of fresh content per channel a day? The InfiniTV has four tuners. I'm never lacking in fresh content. In fact, there's more than I have time to watch. And I don't even watch trashy reality TV shows, talk shows, rich people, or bratty rich kids.

Reruns? I skip them, except for Rudolph around the holidays. Rudolph always plays around the holidays because it's a tradition, not because they don't have anything else to show.

On the other hand, the Netflix plug-in for WMC has critical bugs that make it a pain in the ass. I use it, but you've got to be really careful.

I really want to know who in god's green earth is paying $100 a month on cable?

That's what it would cost me if I bought it with internet. Obviously, I need internet, but no way am I going to pay $100 per month for internet and cable. I have two choices where I live, so obviously, prices will generally be high.

You are still bundling 2 services and decrying the price of another, it would be like me saying: holy crap! buying a grill costs me $50,000 becauzse I have to buy a truck to haul it home on!!!

Price is everything. Content is secondary. When you look at the content vs. value, Netflix wins out easily.

Cable gives you 10x the shows and content...at over 10x the price...plus commercials. Fail.

You go ahead and blow $100 a month or more on cable programming, I think I'll be happier utilizing that $100 a month for something far more important than staring blankly off into space and laughing with a canned audience to "How I Humped Your Mother" or some other pathetic drivel. Which, Netflix has most of that series too if I'm really hard up to see Alyson Hannigan looking cute or a gay guy who plays a playboy.

I was with you until your last phrase... Does an actor's being gay have any bearing on his ability to play a straight character? The reverse role happens all the time, and no one complains. You just end up sounding like a bigot. /boggle

BadassSailor wrote:

I really want to know who in god's green earth is paying $100 a month on cable? It stats at like $30, maybe if you are including your internet bill on top of it, which is completely disingenuous, or if you get every damn channel offered, which will provide content netflix can't and never will be able to touch *cough Game of thrones*

I just checked Comcast to get an idea of cable costs currently. For $30 you get practically nothing. In order to get Comcast SportsNet (good luck watching any local sports without it) and channels you'd expect to have like AMC, TNT. MTV, ESPN, HGTV, Spike, etc. you have to pay at least $65. Want HD? That's $10 extra. Mind you, this doesn't include any premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc.) and we're already hovering around $80, without internet. If anything, getting internet reduces your cost somewhat, but you're still talking about $129 for Internet, and HD box, and a basic set of channels, not including premium channels or DVR.

If it were $30 a month for anything worthwhile, I wouldn't have cancelled my cable.

Good for you, but unless you're watching lawnmower racing, all local sports are carried on local channels in my area. Also the most popular shows on TV are on CBS, NBC, ABC, And fox, all of which are local stations.

What sports entertainment is netflix providing you exactly? They have ESPN on netflix now! That's big new, you'd think I'd be able to find a press release or something.

$100/month sounds like a lot for cable. Until you start adding up the "extras" that make it useful. Basic subscription, digital channels, HD upgrade, DVR, multiple receivers, "local channels," a couple extra packages to get USA/SyFy/whatever, a movie channel (HBO/Cinemax), and before you know it you're up there. I have satellite instead and pay $50/mo without a movie channel package. But they set it up so you have to sign a 2-year contract (@#$%!!!! cell phone mentality) and the second year price jumps to almost that $100 too.

This seems like Netflix not wanting to compete with other developers providing better access to their content. It isn't a direct attack on their customers but a defensive measure against third parties. Of course, customers are affected negatively by less choices in how they use Netflix.

It's one of the risks in a business model that depends on continued access another company's services. Plenty of developers do it - like every Facebook game/service/login - but you have to keep in mind they can cut your legs off at any time. Some companies use the external developers until they get big enough, then give them the boot when they think they don't need them anymore.

I really want to know who in god's green earth is paying $100 a month on cable? It stats at like $30, maybe if you are including your internet bill on top of it, which is completely disingenuous, or if you get every damn channel offered, which will provide content netflix can't and never will be able to touch *cough Game of thrones*.

Online special only - $29.99/mo for basic cable - for new customers only. Minimum 2 year contract and after 12 months service ranges from $56 to $62/mo.

Plus fees.

$60/mo (Double their intro rate) plus fees can stretch towards $75/mo. Without any extra packages. Without movie channels. Without the Internet. $100 a month for cable isn't exaggeration...it's average.

Maybe in your world you can get it for $30/mo for life without fees, but here in reality, the bill is significantly higher, especially once you hit that bottom line and state, federal, local, line and every other type of fee they can think of gets added.

I was with you until your last phrase... Does an actor's being gay have any bearing on his ability to play a straight character? The reverse role happens all the time, and no one complains. You just end up sounding like a bigot. /boggle

No, personally I think the actress is insanely hot and I think the gay actor is one of the best damned actors I've ever seen, bar none. The fact that he's gay makes his role even more hysterical.

Was not made in any way shape or form to express any hate for those lighter in the loafer than I (and far more fashionable)

You are still bundling 2 services and decrying the price of another, it would be like me saying: holy crap! buying a grill costs me $50,000 becauzse I have to buy a truck to haul it home on!!!

I'm just saying that in order for me to get cable, it would cost me at least $70 per month, and with internet, it would cost more than $100. Of course, that doesn't count the "extras" such as HD, HBO, OnDemand, etc.

$100/month sounds like a lot for cable. Until you start adding up the "extras" that make it useful. Basic subscription, digital channels, HD upgrade, DVR, multiple receivers, "local channels," a couple extra packages to get USA/SyFy/whatever, a movie channel (HBO/Cinemax), and before you know it you're up there. I have satellite instead and pay $50/mo without a movie channel package. But they set it up so you have to sign a 2-year contract (@#$%!!!! cell phone mentality) and the second year price jumps to almost that $100 too.

This seems like Netflix not wanting to compete with other developers providing better access to their content. It isn't a direct attack on their customers but a defensive measure against third parties. Of course, customers are affected negatively by less choices in how they use Netflix.

It's one of the risks in a business model that depends on continued access another company's services. Plenty of developers do it - like every Facebook game/service/login - but you have to keep in mind they can cut your legs off at any time. Some companies use the external developers until they get big enough, then give them the boot when they think they don't need them anymore.

When netflix gives you all those extras as well, then it is an apt comparison. Netflix sucks, it has old ass crap and monstersharkgator movies woo hoo! I'm really glad I can watch 2 season ago episodes of house and those blockbusters!

You are still bundling 2 services and decrying the price of another, it would be like me saying: holy crap! buying a grill costs me $50,000 becauzse I have to buy a truck to haul it home on!!!

I'm just saying that in order for me to get cable, it would cost me at least $70 per month, and with internet, it would cost more than $100. Of course, that doesn't count the "extras" such as HD, HBO, OnDemand, etc.

So for me the choice is obvious: ditch cable.

I can see where it's a good value, but I'm just saying that counting the internet service you obviously have without cable in the cost of your cable is being a little disingenuous.

With a basic cable sub and Tivo, I get all the benefits of Netflix + shows that are current for under $50 a month. you can't compare what Netflix gives you with cable, it's just not a fair comparison.

You are still bundling 2 services and decrying the price of another, it would be like me saying: holy crap! buying a grill costs me $50,000 becauzse I have to buy a truck to haul it home on!!!

I'm just saying that in order for me to get cable, it would cost me at least $70 per month, and with internet, it would cost more than $100. Of course, that doesn't count the "extras" such as HD, HBO, OnDemand, etc.

So for me the choice is obvious: ditch cable.

In my area it's $129 for every channel imaginable, excluding all the special subscription ESPN and Disney, but including all the premiums like HBO, Showtime, etc. It includes HD, internet, and OnDemand (which is included in every package, as far as I know). Doesn't include DVR, though. And you have to deal with Concast.

I can see where it's a good value, but I'm just saying that counting the internet service you obviously have without cable in the cost of your cable is being a little disingenuous.

With a basic cable sub and Tivo, I get all the benefits of Netflix + shows that are current for under $50 a month. you can't compare what Netflix gives you with cable, it's just not a fair comparison.

I see what you're saying. I'm saying that internet and cable costs about $100 per month, and cable without internet (which I couldn't get) costs about $70. So yes, cable itself is less than $100, but it's still pricy. And of course I would need to get internet anyway, putting the price at around $100... not including the extra options.

I'm assuming you're not including your internet with the price of your cable, but I have to, as I need internet whether or not I have cable.

I'm not at all comparing it; Netflix is inferior to cable in a lot of ways. I'm just saying that for me, Netflix is great... especially when combined with the iTunes Store. I don't watch much TV in general, I don't keep track of new episodes of shows, I don't care to rent the newest movies, etc.

It's funny to me that they're removing the ability to create a third party search engine for Netflix's library because Netflix's own library SUCKS. In fact, I pretty much exclusively use third party search engines for Netflix. Sad day for Netflix customers.

In case you all missed it in the debate, here's proof, direct from Comcast's (Xfinity) website:

Online special only - $29.99/mo for basic cable - for new customers only. Minimum 2 year contract and after 12 months service ranges from $56 to $62/mo.

Plus fees.

$60/mo (Double their intro rate) plus fees can stretch towards $75/mo. Without any extra packages. Without movie channels. Without the Internet. $100 a month for cable isn't exaggeration...it's average.

Maybe in your world you can get it for $30/mo for life without fees, but here in reality, the bill is significantly higher, especially once you hit that bottom line and state, federal, local, line and every other type of fee they can think of gets added.

What Netflix really needs to implement is a multi-user setup with parental controls. I'd love to watch some of the more adult content on Netflix, but I'm not about to do that as long as my kids have access to the entire viewing history (with no ability to delete individual records). Also, I'd love to have finer control over what my kids are able to watch on Netflix, and what hours they're able to watch.

QFT.

I thought this was coming when they set up individual profiles, but why can't you watch streaming content on the secondary account and have the parental controls control that account? Makes no sense.

People that think Cable TV is better than streaming haven't thought about the issue enough.

Cable TV:

There's usually 2m 15s of commercials for every 5m of service.

Commercials have become intrusive and uncensored in general. Who wants to watch or hear about yeast infections, erectile dysfunction, birth control, weight loss pills or any of their unsatisfactory side effects like uncontrollable oily discharge from the anus? NO ONE.

Cable companies usually bump programming in favor of what's more popular, meaning you're paying to watch what OTHER people enjoy and not necessarily what YOU enjoy.

You're paying to watch a show when the cable company deems it appropriate and not when you do.

DVRs help to curb the commercials and other such timing issues, but they're limited by law and hardware on the amount of recordings at a time and storage.

Most channels have maybe 3 or 4 hours of fresh content every day, the rest of the day it's reruns.

Reruns are generally the same rotating every year. Ever noticed Top Gun or Rudolph around the holiday times? It's like clockwork...

Streaming:

Little to no commercials depending on the service, but it's your choice.

A very large library that spans a wide range of time and not just current trends.

The entire library can usually be watched at any time for any reason without any extra cost for a DVR or worry about having to record.

Access to the content wherever you have internet

The content isn't usually as new

Episodic content lags in being updated

I personally see streaming as the better option... but I'm not a TV junkie, so the outdated episodic content is sufficient to me. I abhor Family guy, South park, Simpsons, trashy reality TV shows about trying to find a 'true love', trashy talk shows, rich people, and bratty rich kids.

I've fixed every one of those cable TV problems with Windows Media Center and a Ceton InfiniTV.

Scheduling? I record TV and watch it when I have time.

Laws and hardware limiting how much I can record? What? I can record and store as much TV as I want, for as long as I want.

Commercials? Not an issue. I have software to strip them out of recorded TV. They're not part of the saved file. I never even have to fast forward through them.

Only three or four hours of fresh content per channel a day? The InfiniTV has four tuners. I'm never lacking in fresh content. In fact, there's more than I have time to watch. And I don't even watch trashy reality TV shows, talk shows, rich people, or bratty rich kids.

Reruns? I skip them, except for Rudolph around the holidays. Rudolph always plays around the holidays because it's a tradition, not because they don't have anything else to show.

On the other hand, the Netflix plug-in for WMC has critical bugs that make it a pain in the ass. I use it, but you've got to be really careful.

I've been on a lengthy rant about Netflix's anti-usability campaign. They've been waging it for a while. Seriously, for a few years they have been removing features from interfaces on all platforms. What remains is pathetic. Search AVS forums for this topic and you'll find many of my posts.

To sumarize, the netflix website is now analogous to visiting a store, standing in front of a conveyer belt, and watching pictures of random products slide by. This has never, and never will be a usable interface. The stupidity of this is beyond comprehension. Sure, maybe as an optional way to browse. But they're going out of their way to make it the only viable interaction technique.

And then there is the systematic removal of features from interfaces on every platform. Remember when the iPad app told you more than just a couple words about each movie? Yeah, you could see a lengthy list of actors, directors, etc. These were hyperlinks as well.

Remember multi-user accounts?

Remember user reviews?

Remember sortable lists?

Etc, etc, etc...

The list of removed functionality is massive. I used to herald Netflix as a company doing good work and offering a great product. Everyone knows I'm a movie and home theater junkie and they come to me with questions. Now I describe netflix as a relatively convenient but crappy product put out by a company hell bent on running itself into the ground.

Hey netflix, try visiting any website on the planet and observe how a library/collection of items is presented. Hint, amazon.com doesn't use a random list of scrolling pictures to sell stuff.

Yeah, i'm annoyed. The future is further away than it used to be. I used to think we were getting closer to the optimal solution each year. But apparently not. We'll just have to wait until something better than netflix comes along because netflix is headed in the wrong direction.

BTW, this is probably old news, but I was just noticing that Amazon added a "watch list" feature that's available on my Roku player. Not being able to easily access Amazon streams was one reason we kept Netflix.

Amazon also added that to their (semi)recent Xbox 360 app thereby, as you stated, giving Amazon a slight edge against Netflix.

I think that consumers want ease and accessibility from their media services and third-party devs try to increase just that (for a profit of course). If Netflix is going to hamstring third-party devs then I think consumers will become increasingly motivated to try competing services.

I think this is perfectly legit, especially if NetFlix intends to get into the advertising biz. (I'd watch limited ads on netflix if it meant they could get newer and better content - the current streaming library isn't very interesting to me). It also makes sense if Netflix is interested in moving into Hulu Plus' territory, which seems like the next logical step. I also like the idea of my information being less shared.

hush your dirty mouth. The beauty of Netflix is the lack of ads. I will turn the damn thing off the moment one pop up or un-skip-able ad comes up. For 8 bucks a month I am ok with them raising prices if it means keeping the service ad free and to acquire more content. If you want ads to subsidize your content then fine. But I'd be willing to pay for the choice not to have ads.

From the cost perspective, you need internet to use Netflix. The real cost is not $10/mo. I have Netflix, and I have Comcast Cable/Internet. My last bill was for $109, for basic cable, HD box w/DVR and internet. Due to my market, I have no other alternative for cable OR internet. Internet is like... $50. So if I want Netflix, it actually costs about $60, or whatever the monthly is on streaming Netflix now plus the internet.

To the cost of cable, the only way to get it super cheap in most US markets is to accept a bundle, and sign a contract for two years that has an onerous cancellation fee. You may start paying $40/mo, but it will suddenly spike after the promotional period ends.

As for Netflix service, obviously your taste and your demand for new v. old content is huge factor. I have no problem with the content. If I started watching TV shows today, I imagine I could watch back-seasons of things I haven't seen for years before even getting to movies. Depends on your taste.

ESPN3 requires you have internet/cable with a participating provider, so that solves no problems for the sports issue.

As for APIs, I guess I don't care. I'm not a Netflix power user, and I've had very few problems with the website or my 360, either viewing or searching for things to view. I don't expect any company to make sure others using their data are treated fairly. Not saying that's the right choice, but a developer has to know that any company providing APIs can do what they want, when they want.

First off, its not as if Netflix was handing out everyones data to all comers. It was data you provided to an application by giving it your Netflix credentials/key/etc. I think what is most troubling is the pattern we are seeing exposed here. Netflix is moving from a company that exposed as much as possible to try to create the best possible experiences for customers and let third party developers build truly compelling applications integrating Netflix to more of a traditional content provider model of walling everything off as much as possible and hoping that will stem the bleeding. This is generally an indication that a company has lost its innovative edge and is just trying to hold on to market share. Companies that are still innovating and driving new customers through compelling new products and features thrive on bringing in as much free (to them) external talent as possible.